George says this:
"A note about that [SB 469] victory, for context. Conservative legislators here in Georgia, at nearly no cost in time or tears to themselves, were able to tie Occupy Atlanta and other progressive organizations in knots for weeks with the authoring of a single bill that had no reasonable chance of passing judicial scrutiny. Meanwhile, the legislature essentially rewrote the tax code, will force welfare recipients to undergo drug tests and banned abortions after 20 weeks – all laws that would have otherwise drawn much more intense scrutiny and opposition from these groups."
1) You're assuming that people would have wanted to risk Roberts Court Roulette. When the far-right SCOTUS we now have is looking favorably at Arizona's SB 1070, one can't assume that SB 469 wouldn't have wound up -- after great expense of the sort you sorrowfully say was wasted on keeping it from becoming law -- being upheld by a court that will, thanks to Citizens United's guaranteeing the "right" of rich people to buy elections and smother our voices under mountains of cash, do nothing but get even more conservative as the decades pass.
2) Honestly, now: which would have been an easier battle to win -- stopping SB 469, or stopping any of the other bills you mention? Or would you rather that *no* victories happened and trusted to the mercy of right-wing-packed appellate courts and/or the SCOTUS?
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation